Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

SFraser

Members+
  • Content Count

    2,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFraser

  1. Very much so. It is a game premised not only on paying attention to detail, but actually learning the simulation of football much like you have to in real life. The "hardness" of the game is a designed simulation of football management in the respect that you must learn the tricks of the trade. Teamtalks are probably the best example of this, one of the simplest mechanics to use yet one of the toughest mechanics to use. It's easy to use teamtalks, it's significantly harder to understand your players "psyche" and use the right teamtalk at the right time. All the guides in the world pale into insignificance when it comes to actually watching and learning your own players, opponents, and how things work. This is why the phrase "It's your tactics" is so prevailent. No one can fix things for you without playing your saved game. It all comes down to manager skill at the end of the day, no matter how much you read and watch and understand and test and explore. No guide/discussion/debate/explanation can actually help you make the right decisions at the right time for the right players. That's the real beauty of this game. That's what makes it the best football mangement simulator around.
  2. Pay attention to age. It's probably the most important part of training. Training hugely rewards those that understand age and pay attention to longterm development trends. That's one of the key points in this entire thread.
  3. I have not looked at Hodgsons 4-4-2 in much depth but the thing that sticks out from following results and watching the odd Fulham game is the immense defensive strength of the side. From what I have read in this thread, including the links in the OP, watching the odd match and following results, it's looks like Hodgson might be playing a variation of the Benitez style 4-2-3-1 or indeed a defensive 4-4-1-1, whatever tickles your fancy. The key seems to be his choice of second CM and second CF around Murphy, Zamora, and excellent wingers. Picking different second CMs and Second Strikers for different matches with different requirements/possibilities for getting results. I would say that his formation/tactics are pretty basic and simple but his decision making and choices of player and his understanding of necessities/opportunities in some simple adaptable roles is top quality. Explains why he could finish 4 points behind Benitez and meet his Liverpool side in the Europa Cup Final. Excellent judge of flexibility in a team that can both defend and attack with strength, with nowhere near the player pulling power. That final would be a feast, though Gerrard in a Liverpool shirt in a one off match with the chance to win a rare medal would undoubtedly win the tie, despite Hodgsons clear management skill.
  4. Categories like Set Pieces for Centrebacks do not need to be trained but I would not drop Attacking or Shooting to zero for Centrebacks as they will drop and quite rapidly if the player is at a stable level of CA. Passing, Creativity and Composure are still important attributes for a Centreback and in terms of raw CA you would need a drop of over 3 Composure attribute levels for an increase of 1 in Positioning. If you wish to push CA from the shooting Category into other areas of the defenders game, the best time to do so would be when he is around 30 as the mental Composure attribute would drop less rapidly than the technical Finishing and Longshot attributes. By contrast the best time to push CA from the Strength Category into other areas would be when the Centreback is young and his Strength + Stamina would decline less rapidly than his Workrate. Don't just blindly rush into designing schedules in such an aggressive manner without paying attention to those points above. If you drop Shooting too low too early in the players career it will be the Centrebacks Composure attribute that suffers more than his Finishing and Longshots.
  5. A higher Tempo can lead to missed chances, missed goal creating opportunites, poor decisions, reduced composure and sometimes even blind panic. Depending on precisely how/where your Striker is missing chances, you can use the HUB instruction on him to effectively tell him to take a touch/take his time if he lacks composure. Players running onto a throughball and ballooning first time shots into the stand are better candidates for HUB in this specific manner than players involved in link-up play or trying to dribble past defenders.
  6. Hmm it seems a post I quoted and responded to has completely disappeared.
  7. Reduced Workload reduces CA gain from training, but it also reduces condition loss/increases condition recovery and very likely reduces injury risk. Distribution of training effect between attributes in a single category depends on attribute type and player Age. Technical/Mental/Physical attribute types have different rates and patterns of growth, and the precise rate/pattern at any specific time depends on the players age. I would surmise that there is more to add to this list, but these are the known issues and anything else is speculation with a minor or non-obvious impact. For example Workload may define how much "ability" you are moving around, how quickly/slowly changes occur. I play by the assumption that this is true as it is logical and is in keeping with the general "themes" of the rest of the training mechanics, but I do not know for certain that it is true and it would be rather difficult to test as it would require an environment of zero CA change over time.
  8. A variety of formations based on the Zona Mista form of Catenaccio adapted for my team and for each opponent. The Second Striker role is a "tactical spare" and the variety of players in the club allows me to construct just about any system I want through instructions without disturbing the basic shape of the team. Those are just a few examples of what you can quite easilly adapt to with a few minor tweaks here and there. You can do even more with the instructions for players from those positions, pushing the LCM into a wing position in the first formation for example, or pushing up the RCM to play as a Second Striker in the last formation. Or do what United did against Milan with the middle image and play two playmakers in the DM and RCM positions with two box-to-box, hardworking midfielders in LCM and AMC getting forward and wide and pressing high up the pitch. I regret selling Park before I started playing this way. He would have been an excellent player to have as an option in this system. It just goes to show how much of the game is about understanding what your players can and cannot do, and knowing what that offers to your side on the pitch in a tactical sense. A combination of the two. Mentality, Creative Freedom, Passing Style, Closing Down(for most players but not all), Tackling and Marking settings I usually leave for the Touchline Shouts / TC to modify during a match. All the other instructions I specifically choose myself. It is very useful to be able to switch between high pressing/standing off, more direct attacking or more controlled possession etc. during a match. It is much less useful to have horrible crossers whipping in balls, or 35 year old playmakers dribbling with the ball, or even worse to have your Lone Striker running into channels from an Inside Left position instead of cutting inside onto his strongest foot. My Left Wingback for example is usually instructed to "Cut Inside" and this has dramatically improved my attacking play down that flank, not because he bombs towards goal like Messi but because he takes the ball infield and lays it off, while creating space that triggers plenty of movement in my frontline. Specifically for Rooney who will move wide and has a good chance of being spotted and played through on goal, otherwise Rooney will create space for another run and Cut Inside onto his strongest foot if he gets the ball in the wide positions. If the Left Wingback simply headed down the line he would prevent that entire process of constant attacking movement and recycling possession from taking place, and probably whip a horrible cross out of play. Bit of a derail here though. Let's not get too deep into Tactical Discussion. My bad.
  9. It's all about how you use them. Here is a screenshot of the 2010-2011 season in my current save as Manchester United. I am six games into the season, 4 PL games, a Charity Shield match, and a European Super Cup match. Look at the contribution from Ryan Giggs. The guy is 36 years old, has only played 80 minutes of football in 6 matches, but has scored two goals and setup another in those 80 minutes, with an average rating of 7.9. One of those goals came against Chelsea in the league, of all games to score in. Look at Giggs' attributes. The guy is declining, and dropping like a stone when it comes to physical ability. 11 Natural fitness, 9 Stamina, 12 Acceleration, 12 Pace. These are horrible physical attributes, and with Giggs they are only going to get worse. Look at his last five games. Average rating of 8.18, 4 goals scored. The guy cannot play regularly but is an absolute weapon of a footballer when he does play. Estimated value of £450,000? The guy is one of the most important players in my club, a footballing nuclear missile. Did you see the player Douglas Costa in the first screenshot? What has he contributed to the team this season? Two goals and one assist in only 67 minutes of football. Have a look at his profile, look at his Natural Fitness and Stamina. Remind you of a young version of anyone? That's right, Douglas Costa is my new Ryan Giggs. The only difference between the two players is that Costa is improving while Giggs is declining. Costa is getting his Strength Category boosted, even at the expense of his Aerobic while Giggs his getting his Strength decline halted as much as possible, at the expense of Aerobic. Neither of these two players has high Natural Fitness or high Stamina, and cannot play every game for 90 minutes. They are however my "secret weapons", coming on for the late stages of games when opponents are knackered, and producing the goods and then some. One is declining, the other is developing, both are absolute weapons in the last 20 minutes of a game. This is Premier League / Champions League level. By the way, do you like how I use Carrick, Valencia and Rooney?
  10. Not a lot. Natural Fitness doesn't increase/decrease according to CA gains but is more like Aggression/Bravery/Determination. Players with low Natural Fitness need an even closer eye on their condition. Condition between matches and tactical instructions that produce condition loss in-match. Compensating for low Natural Fitness, or low Stamina, requires good rotation/usage strategies and you can help yourself more by limiting the amount of closing down or runs a player makes during a match. Reducing Training Workload is another option. Other than tactical instructions or rotation policies or training workloads that reduce the amount of condition a player loses between games, there is not a lot more you can do. Natural Fitness is a "personality" type Attribute, that defines not how a player behaves in a single move, but how he behaves over the course of a few weeks, or a season, or his career. Low Natural Fitness players simply do not recover condition very well, and there is not a lot you can do about that. Low closing down, low "forward runs/runs with ball", reduced training, and good rotation strategies are all you really have to work with. Depends on the level you play at. Low stamina = condition loss = performance decline. If your players performance drops like a stone while those around him are still at peak performance it is bad, if those around him drop like a stone and he is still better, thats great. 12 Stamina is decent for third or fourth tier leagues. It is a disaster for top leagues. I would always attempt to train a minimum of 15 at Manchester United, while 12 would be a high score in the Blue Square.
  11. Intensive Strength training. You need to be careful with injuries, but at the same time you need to try and maximise his Strength increases. I would pay close attention to a players current Strength Attributes. There may be a correlation between low Stamina/Strength, his Strength Training and injuries. Physically weak players doing Intensive Physical training may well be more susceptible to physical injuries, and that is something I am seeing in my game, although it could be chance. Either way, make sure his Strength Focus is higher than any other Focus, possibly even 2-3x any other focus. You cannot easilly raise Strength Attributes in older players, and Stamina is a key attribute. If the player starts getting injured you will have to reduce the Strength intensity, while also reducing the other intensities to maintain the same ratio of improvement. That combined to Match Experience and the above explanation for youth development is what you should be aiming for.
  12. That is a brilliant question. Youth development is what got me so interested in Training in the first place. It was something I needed to understand and be able to use effectively in order to maximise the development of my youngsters, to improve key deficiencies severely hindering them while boosting certain strengths that would enable them to to perform a few functions in-match to a high degree of ability. For young players specifically, their optimal amount of game time is a much more indepth issue than with older players that are still developing or not yet reached their maximum potential, in my opinion anyway. There are many more factors to consider with youngsters, and introducing them to First Team football is a more complex, yet incredibly fun and entertaining and rewarding, question of management ability. The optimal amount of game time for a youngster to develop quickly is whatever keeps them at 100% Match Experience. The problem is that Match Experience cannot be directly seen ingame. The condition percentage is a combination of Match Experience and Physical Fitness while the Fitness display (Match Fit, Superb, Severely Lacking Match Fitness etc.) is more of a general indication of certain key levels reached in both Physical Condition and Match Experience. To give a few examples: 1: Fitness = Superb Condition / Condition = 100%. The player is at 100% Match Experience and 100% Physical Condition. 2: Fitness = Severely Lacking Match Fitness / Condition = 90%. The player is probably around 50% Match Experience and 100% Physical Condition. 3: Fitness = Tired / Condition = 89%. The player is at 100% Match Experience and probably around 80% to 85% Physical Condition. Now 100% Match Experience means maximum CA growth rates, but it means maximum CA growth rates for whatever CA is actually gained. Match Experience is like a final modifier of CA gain, so 50% Match Experience means 50% of whatever CA you should gain is what you actually gain. If CA is dropping for some reason, low Match Experience will increase the drop. High or Maximum Match Experience is what you want in your youngsters. This maximises the amount of CA you gain. However the story does not end there. You can stop here if you like as the most important stuff is done, but there is so much more to youth development than Match Experience. Youth Development With the desire to achieve maximum Match Experience a given, youth development is then all about playing under-developed players in such a manner that they remain happy, they gain the respect of their teammates, they perform well on the pitch, they achieve high levels of CA gain, and that the manager understands how to use them and uses them in such a way that they are not a detriment to the team and that they are "figured out" and used effectively. Match Performances and Club/Opponent/Competition Reputation are important factors in CA gain rates. The optimal quantity of playing time for maximum CA gain from each match is 100% Match Experience, but what defines the quantity of CA gained per match is Club/Opponent/Competition Reputation and Match Performance levels. 100% Match Experience will always give 100% of the CA gained to the player, but a bad performance in the League Cup Second Round from a Manchester United youngsters at home to Accrington Stanley will give far less basic CA than a Hat-trick and a Man-Of-The-Match Performance against Barcelona in the European Cup Final. An 18 year old that bags a Hat-trick against Barcelona in the European Cup Final will not only gain maximum possible CA, but will also gains one-off boosts to attributes like Influence, Finishing, Important Matches, Determination, Pressure etc. The performances of youngsters directly impacts not only their CA gain, but their football ability and mental abilities, influence, teammates perception, asking price and reputation. Any player that does exceptionally well in tough/important matches will receive these kinds of boosts and benefits, but in youngsters these increases are greater, more decisive at their age, and hugely more beneficial to their overall ability. Likewise any detrimental after effects of bad performances are magnified and very disruptive to the players development. Significantly bad performances can see players actually decline, especially if the player is regularly poor. The oldest/biggest/best trick in the book for getting immense performances out of youngsters in First Team matches is to use maximum condition, fresh, fit, energetic youngsters against knackered opponents for the last 10-20 minutes of a game. As condition drops, so does the ability of players. Concentration drops, Workrate drops, and I would guess all mental abilities drop according to condition. A completely fresh, livewire, dribbling and pace fanatic with a decent cross and plenty of flair coming into the game at 100% condition or Superb Fitness will perform far above his abilities precisely because the opponents are playing below their abilities. In this situation he has the greatest opportunity to make the biggest impact and achieve the best performance rating, and so gain the maximum possible benefits from the Match Experience. The manager can further boost his performance by playing him where he can best influence the game in a positive manner, and by motivating him so he plays even better. This requires a manager that understands the players capabilities and mental state/personality. Bringing on a pacey, aggressive striker that makes good runs alongside a wise old veteran playmaker to feed him the ball for the last 15 minutes of the game is a recipe for maximum results for your youngsters. As is bringing on a livewire winger with targetman instructions and a cunning veteran "fox-in-the-box" as the targetman. This all requires that the manager pays close attention to physical condition as well as Match Experience, pays attention to player abilities and player personality and match tactics and opponent abilities. This requires that the manager is knowledgeable about his players, and cunning about his tactics. Above all though it requires that the manager is capable of introducing youngsters into a team where they can make the maximum impact. This will benefit player development, but also benefit the team. Macheda or Gibson scores yet another last gasp late goal, which not only pulls the team back into the game or seals a late winner, but boosts the players CA and mental ability gains to their maximum possible levels. Then praise the lad publicly so he becomes your best friend, then bench him for the next game so he knows he has to earn his place, and so you can use him at the perfect moment in the match for maximum benefit for player, team, club and manager. And if you happen to Mentor him with the player he replaces as sub, or the player he plays alongside when he comes onto the pitch, this will only reinforce the bonds and reinforce the competition between players, and improve your team and club even further.
  13. If you get beat by powerful attacking sides using these formations then consider using your own wingers as man markers on their wingers and keep your fullbacks free to cover gaps/double up/maintain possession. Pay attention to where their greatest threat against you is likely to come from and try and force them in the other direction. It also a very good idea to find their key creative player and shut him out of the game with a man. Relatively easy if it is Arsenal and Fabregas, significantly more difficult if it is Barcelona with Xavi and Iniesta. If you get beat/draw against "weaker" teams playing these formations then you are very likely losing the midfield battle, or contriving to play into their defensive/counter-attacking hands in some other fashion. Failure to win the ball back and failure to use it wisely and skillfully and intelligently are common causes of frustration against "weaker" sides. Think passbacks, defensive mixups, or Centreback and Goalkeeper going for the same ball. Higher levels of Communication in Goalkeepers will reduce the frequency of these defensive errors.
  14. The Veteran schedules are designed to slow down the decline of Stamina while reducing Overall Workload to boost condition recovery. Meaning they can play longer/more often and wont lose Stamina so quickly which will basically end their careers if it is not addressed. The other alternative is the Developing Schedules. It seems counter-intuitive but they are both Stamina training intensive. One is at a high workload, the other is at low. If your player isn't playing regularly I would put him on developing unless you want to end his career. If he is playing regularly then Veteran is the best choice as it will allow him to play more often.
  15. The evidence points against the idea of attribute weights being directly involved in training. There are no +1000% non-key attribute gains over key attribute gains. Attributes such as Positioning and Off The Ball tend to go up fairly equally irrespective of Position in all players. You certainly do not see Finishing going up 10x faster than Positioning in a Centreback. That does not mean that there is no complex mechanism at work bringing attribute weights down to a more logical rate of increase. I suggested that attribute CA gain is proportional to CA weight as that is what the evidence suggested to me, but there are certain examples where attributes are not behaving according to theory. I have not done much investigation into the impact of coaches on training, and I would assume that there is a significant impact from coaches on training. Untill coaches are investigated properly I cannot rule out a complex mechanic of dealing with attribute weights, but I think it is unlikely. Irrespective of all of that though, it is absolutely clear that the direct, unmodified attribute weights play no role in training. It is completely false to think that each attribute receives an equal share of CA when CA is gained, and that key attributes require 10x more to increase. That would produce situations that would destroy players, let alone the ability to train them.
  16. Yes that is dissapointing with the Physical attributes. I guess a focus bias of +1 is not high enough. Results like these re-open the discussion for attribute weights being involved in some way in training, but clearly that impact is no greater than +/- 100% and certainly not the +/- 1000% you would expect to see from non-proportional CA gains. There is however another potential source for these discrepancies, and that is Coaches. I would be interested to know the attributes of your Coaches facman to see if there is any potential correlation.
  17. I didn't notice that either, that is an excellent spot. As for the "Final Version" of the schedules, Prozone, DocSander and myself are working on a tool (work I have been holding up) for constructing schedules based on this training thread. The release of that tool will undoubtedly take much longer than releasing a set of updated schedules, but as Indi rightly points out the end result should be much, much superior for all users than any set of schedules I could produce. @ Indi, you talk about using your own weightings. I was wondering what weightings they are, and if you had spotted anything to take into account that produces a superior end result?
  18. It was a poster named CATAFAN. His thread was called something like "The Fastest Way to Player Development".
  19. It is neither completely accurate not entireally flawed. 1 notch per attribute is only a small part of the overall training regime here, and it is the approach to setting sliders that gives the most accurate level of control over balancing Categories. You cannot accurately choose specific attributes, nor can you accurately control whether attributes within a category receive the same amount of Training, i.e. one notch. However what does happen is that by using 1 notch per attribute you make sure you are accounting for attribute growth and not category growth, and then by exploiting Age related development trends you can pick and choose when and where to apply increased/decreased training ratios for the Categories containing specific attributes. For example in a 20 year old player training the Strength Category at notch 3, the Stamina and Strength attributes will take more than their equal share of training while Workrate takes less than its equal share. In a 30 year old player the converse is true. Thus 1 notch per attribute is simply a basic standard for keeping Categories reasonably balanced when you come to design a schedule. You then take into account the other factors that influence Training and take into account your desires for your player and alter the schedule accordingly.
  20. You can use players with no bravery in a good covering role. Significantly poor bravery is a handicap though. As for the Positions used in my Schedules, they are all designed for a club like Manchester United where the CF is expected to not only be strong but intelligent and play a key link-up role in the team. For the lower leagues a schedule like Wing Forward that aims to produce physically powerful, direct players might be more suited to your Centre Forwards. The problem here is that I cannot create all types of ideal schedules for all users in all contexts. I build schedules for my side and release them. Hopefully the information in this thread regarding how to design schedules is enough for some people to expand the number and type of schedules, but these "additional schedules" are not very forth coming. I had hoped that providing enough detail would enable people to design their own schedules and produce them here in this thread for others to download. I am not sure why, but this ambition for a "schedule library" has seriously failed.
  21. Exactly. Categories with few attributes will always appear low precisely because they have fewer attributes. Aerobic has 5 trainable attributes and Attacking has 2 trainable attributes. Placing Aerobic and Attacking at the same Training level means each Category is training at the same level, but it means each Attacking attribute is getting 2.5x more training than each Aerobic attribute. Aerobic at notch 5 and attacking at notch 4 means attacking attributes are still getting 2x more training than Aerobic attributes. It is lower training for the Category, but the Category contains less than half the attributes. Each attacking attribute is getting heaps more training than each Aerobic, even for less Category Training. Attacking is hard to balance because it is so small. Each notch increase for attacking is another 50% increase for each attacking attribute versus all other attributes. Knock Aerobic up a single notch and you gain 20% more training for each Aerobic attribute. Knock Aerobic up 2 notches and you gain less than 50% more training for each attribute. Knock Attacking up two notches and you gain an additional 100% bias for each attribute. Aerobic can never go higher than 5x Training for each attribute. Attacking can go as high as 12.5x training for each attribute. It is easy to "fluke" good results for Aerobic, it is a matter of absolutely perfect fine tuning to get the right balance of attacking.
  22. You already answered your own question. Starting from a position of zero Training bias allows you to construct schedules for players based on their needs from a controlled position. It is much easier to design a schedule for Defenders based on a control schedule of zero bias than it is to design a schedule for Defenders based on a Schedule designed for Strikers. A control schedule is an essential template as it allows you to judge subsequent schedules in comparison to a schedule with minimal impact on attributes. Attempting to design a schedule for a Defender based on a schedule designed for a Striker in the absence of a control template gives you no ability to judge which Categories are biased for improvement, which are biased for decline and to what extent these Categories are biased. I have produced control schedules for download in my schedule pack precisely for the purposes of designing schedules if mine are not to your satisfaction. Without a control schedule it is incredibly hard to reverse engineer schedules developed for specific positions, specific roles, specific age groups etc. You really need to read this thread in it's entirety. I am not going to constantly rewrite detailed explanations of my entire thought process and design procedure because you cannot be bothered to find the previous explanation in a 5 page thread. Start with this post. http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=4924985&postcount=250
  23. I have already written a large post in this very thread explaining how I go about designing specific schedules, how I judge the value and importance of Categories, and how I modify my ideal end results based on Age for a longterm approach to development. Even when starting from the basic and simple premise of increasing Category intensity according to the number of attributes in that Category, there are still a vast number of factors that have to be taken into account when designing an accurate schedule. Some of those factors are by-products of the premise itself and of the limitations of the Schedule interface, such as a limit on the scale of relative differences between Categories. Other factors are actual game mechanics, inability to know in detail the precise impact of those game mechanics, the details of the player himself, the club around the player, and what you want to achieve with the player. The combination of all of these factors produce an individual "framework" for a particular player and no two players are exactly alike. The first and greatest "standard of importance" is an accurate understanding of the player in question in terms of general development potential, in-match ability and longterm desires for improvement shape. This is the absolute crux of all Training, and everything else after this point is just the application of basic rules to achieve the ideal end Schedule. The biggest stumbling block in Training so far has not been a lack of understanding of basic rules of attribute growth and player development, but a working method of applying these rules accurately to the Schedule Categories. The fundamental problem has been highly theoretical "guestimates" on how the sliders relate to each other and should be positioned for X result. All the knowledge in the world on the practical mechanics of attribute development is completely useless if you do not know how to position and judge the sliders. Working in terms of Categories or Bar Charts, Overall Training Lines and maximising Overall Limits are all "theories" with no solid arguement behind them and no solid end results supporting them. Indeed they fail to account for factual and inevitable declines in attributes while focusing solely on achieving high Bar Chart levels and interpreting those levels as success. These are unanimously poor approaches to Training built entireally upon assumptions that directly contradict ingame development patterns. The race to produce pretty, symmetrical, and unanimously high Bar Chart levels has blinded people to the fact that these charts provide unknown information that is guessed at and assumed to mean "great training" while people also get carried away by seeing 25+ green arrows in youngsters and assume these schedules are perfect. There is a significant quantity of fundamental misinterpretation of game mechanics being paraded around as excellent Training schedules. My own approach to Training is to simply find out how to judge slider positions relative to each other. To find out what slider positions per Category produces the same or similar Training effect once Age is accounted for. My first attempt was to increase each Category according to the number of Attributes contained within that Category, and it turned out to produce incredibly accurate results. Only when I was convinced that I was on the right track, that training Attributes per Category and not simply matching Categories was producing significantly superior results in terms of targetted attribute increases, did I release these schedules to the public. I am not sure exactly what you want here.
  24. I have already explained to you that Attribute Weightings do not fit into Training Schedules and that there are no patterns of attribute change that correspond to Attribute Weightings. The difference between the largest and smallest Attribute Weights is a factor of 21x as far as I am aware, and if these Weights were directly involved in attribute growth then Training would be impossible, and there would be rediculous scales of non key attribute growth. Attribute Weightings, like CA, are limiting factors on the maximum level of attributes. All differences in attribute growth rates can be explained by Age, and if there is any room for Attribute Weight influence on Attribute Growth rates it is minor. There are certainly no examples whatsoever of natural growth patterns of non key attributes reaching 21x the rate of increase of key attributes. Indeed there are few examples of any attributes growing at a rate of 4x another per season even under perfect conditions with vast biases in Training schedules. Attribute Growth rates do not correspond to differences in Attribute Weights. Indeed the actual evidence suggests that once Age is taken out of the equation there is no difference in the growth rates of attributes in the same Category. Any and all variations in attribute growth rates inside a Category when Age is removed are minor and are very likely to be perception errors. You assume that I have made no study of Attribute Weightings, and you completely wrong. I have spent a long time studying their influence on Training and Attribute Growth and my conclusion is that they have none, or if they do it is minor and accounts for a fraction of the end result which could equally be explained by perception errors. That is entireally incorrect. My initial starting point is that attribute growth behaviour is not equal, does not follow patterns of Training Levels and Training Progress, and does not produce equal results from equal slider positions. My initial starting point is that all the tools available to us immediately upon entering the Training screen or Attribute Profile requires vast quantities of study and interpretation before even basic relationships can be defined and exposed. The end result of a long term process of study and investigation is a set of experimental Schedules testing the premise of Training players based on accounting for the number of attributes being Trained and taking into account the impact of Age. The resulting feedback from these schedules accounting for Attributes and Age would inform me of the impact of other factors, such as Attribute Weights etc. As you can clearly see from this thread there is none, or only a minor impact accounting for a fraction of the end result. This is the fundamental point you are missing. The direct evidence argues against the impact of Training Weights. The direct evidence argues directly in favour of accounting for number of Attributes being Trained and the impact of Age on their rate of growth or decline. It is not possible to see all results conform precisely to predictions and knowledge of factually involved game mechanics based on a completely faulty premise. Have you actually tried these schedules? You keep asking me for evidence as if none exists when this entire thread is a library of evidence. Now it is my turn to ask you for evidence to support any of your assumptions. First of all I would say you are vastly overcomplicating issues without providing any kind of basic explanation of how to train players for best results, and providing absolutely zero evidence for any of your claims. Secondly I would say you are completely focused on Bar Charts without explaining precisely what they tell us, or taking into account Attribute Change end results. I am sure everyone that plays FM has had their fair share of grand theories on how Training Schedules relate to Bar Charts, but end results are inevitably poor and most "theories" simply fail to take into account the most basic of factual, unavoidable, clear-cut and important factors. The "Training Line Theory" that you so love simply cannot work when CA changes or attributes increase/decline with Age, which is something we all know happens ingame. There is no Aerobic Maintain line for a 40 year old player, end of story. You can pretend otherwise but it is still only a pretence of an understanding of Training. The "Training Line Theory" is a double edged sword. On the one hand due to its simplicity it has become quite enthralling to many people, on the other hand it is so obviously false that it motivates others to dispel what is quite frankly a rediculous myth. When the completely false is obviously wrong it is much better for everyone looking for information than when the completely false is not obviously wrong. I should thank you both for your input to this thread. You have both perfectly illustrated precisely what is to be avoided, and that is assumptions that are never tested, never explained, that never take into account the data presented on screens. Assumptions that are put into practice on the wing of a prayer without ever checking to see what is what, or taking into account what actually happens. My "theory" is simple. Ignore "Training Lines" ignore "Attribute Weights" ignore all these other theorems that simply do not correspond to what is seen ingame. Take into account the number of attributes per Category, take into account the impact of Age on the rate of improvement/decline of each of the three Attribute Profile Panels. I have produced schedules based on these simple points and the results are here for anyone to look at. This thread always was a test, and the results have been as good as I could have hoped for. The feedback and refinement and subsequent analysis, investigation and explanation has been absolutely top notch. The bottom line is end results. Everyone wants the best possible results. I want the best possible results and that's why I started this thread.
×
×
  • Create New...